Talk:Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand)

Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 26, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

A fact from Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 July 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the idea for the song "Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand)" came to Jeannie Seely at the age of 23, and she was still earning royalties for it at age 78?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand).

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 16:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reserving. Expect comments over the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and general comments

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Overall a nice article about a song with interesting connections in the past and renewed interest in the present. I think there is a bit much focus on the present; ideally there should be some reviews from the 1960s and a little more on the production of the original recording and perhaps about live performances.
Images and the sound clip seem fine.
A few comments about the prose below (mostly fine)
Broadness: I think some things should be treated a bit more in-depth if possible, see below. Some section titles are also a bit off.

That's it for the moment, I will return for a second pass (and then also think about whether the lead section is a good summary). —Kusma (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

Lead: Not a fan of writing "Lyrically" to show that a sentence is about the lyrics.
- Done — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and began to appear in other film and television. Either "film and television productions" or "films and television somethingorothers"
- Now "films and television programs". — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
had released her first charting single on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Several things. "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" is anachronistic. Also, this reads as if she released the single on "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs", not that the single charted there. Finally, do we know what the single was?
- The single was "You Can Have My Husband (But Don't Mess with My Man)" (1960). I'm not quite sure what to do about the chart naming. As I understand it, the single did peak (retroactively) on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs list at #52; the modern list is an aggregate of past lists, which went by different names. In 1964, it appears (if Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs is accurate) that Billboard had no R&B-specific chart, and that Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs' 1964 data is based on Cashbox. But the sources I'm using for the data are modern (1990s or later) sources that just refer to Billboard's R&B charts. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, indeed, there were no R&B charts at the time, but my original point was that the chart that didn't exist was certainly not called "Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" because this is from before Hip hop was a thing. The song actually got to number 52 on the Billboard Hot 100, see p. 20 here. Following your source instead of the truth, you could at least pipe R&B charts to avoid the anachronistic mention of Hip-Hop. Or you could cite the original charts and make a footnote that your other source is in error. —Kusma (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, that clears things up considerably. I was quite confused at what the sources were saying. I've just cited the original chart now (for AWKWTLVI and "Don't Mess with My Man")—there's nothing more authoritative than that, so I don't think I need a footnote about the other sources. Let me know if you think otherwise. For "Don't Mess with My Man", I've used the name of the chart at the time ("Hot R&B Sides"). — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her next six singles were not hits Is there a better citation for this than WP:ALLMUSIC? Here's a book. There are a few books on archive.org that you could look into.
- Now removed AllMusic entirely and replaced with something else from that book, and some other liner notes. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas was working for Minit Records when they were acquired by Imperial Records in 1963; her first single with the label first single with Minit, or first single with Imperial?
- Imperial (clarified now). — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, she had "medium-sized hits" during the period. Not sure what period we are talking about here; the period before AWKWLI(WU)?
- Now "during her years at Imperial" (from a bit before to a bit after AWKWLI). — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Production: This section isn't about production, it is about writing the song.
- Now "Composition and recording". — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
their piano whose piano?
- Now "to use the label's piano" — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The arrangement was apparently by H. B. Barnum (it is written on the record itself and e.g. here
It would be nice to have something about the actual production (recording studio, musicians, instruments). Again, it was apparently "conducted by Barnum".
- Got as much as I can out of the book source and a couple others that I found. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics: Lyrically, Newman biographer Kevin Courrier described This could be read as Kevin Courrier's description being lyrical.
- "Lyrical" removed. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little about the music in this section.
- Now a little more. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Release: I think the flow of the B-side part can be improved; do you need to say "The B-side" twice there?
- Reworked a little bit. There was some redundancy, but I want to be clear that the sentences are all about "Time Is on My Side" and not AWKWLI. Also, now in the the "Composition and recording" section per above. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Use in popular culture: wasn't the original song also in some sense popular culture?
- Renamed "Use in television and film". — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charts and certifications: No certifications that I can see, and an anachronistic name for the chart. The section is also very short and could be combined with "Release" as a "Release and reception".
- Moved to "Release" (which I think suffices for a section title). See above with regards to the chart name. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Credits and personnel: Nothing about the other musicians?
- Before my work on the article, it claimed Judith Arbuckle and Pat Sheeran are also credited as co-composers ... What their specific writing input may have been (if any) is unknown with no source. Without a reference, we can hardly say that, but I've been unable to find anything on Arbuckle and Sheeran. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Kusma. Just letting you know that I'm hoping to action them all by Sunday, but maybe not before. I've struggled to find sources from the time (perhaps due to access; perhaps due to non-existence) and also reviews or analysis of the original work, but I will see what I can do. The fact is that it wasn't a huge hit and the song may not have been notable until retrospectives about Thomas/Seely/Newman or its 2010s revived usage. Nonetheless I appreciate being challenged to find more to say about the original recording. — Bilorv (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not easy, but I do think it's worth to try. short mention. The liner notes here says the song was released 14 May 1964. There should exist some R&B magazine reviews and interviews from the time. I know it isn't necessary for GAs to be comprehensive, but I think there is more to find. As to "challenge", well, picking up a music GA review was partially caused by a certain challenge you set :) —Kusma (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard magazine, similar to the Cashbox short mention. Couldn't find any online archives of the many R&B magazines of the period. There's a few mentions here and there but nothing in-depth it seems, so I won't hold that against you. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looked for more sources, but not found anything in-depth enough to really have a dedicated place for reviews (it's mostly simple adjective phrases like "effective chorus backing"), but there's now more about the musicality of the song. Added the liner notes info and responded to the comments above. Let me know what still needs to be done, Kusma. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Good responses, looks much better in general, I'll look more closely in a few hours. See above for my thoughts on the chart name; I really think you should not pretend that the song appeared on a chart for a genre from the future. —Kusma (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above, Kusma. — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv, I think I'm happy enough now, nice work. To improve further, I guess you'll need a library with actual access to 1960s R&B magazines. I'll do the promotion paperwork now. —Kusma (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]